early_morningfandomcom-20200214-history
How to Fix the Simpsons
Never violate the reality of the show: The Simpsons has long run on elastic reality – the idea that people will accept weird and unrealistic elements so long as things snap back to normal immediately after. It’s an unexpectedly apt analogy, because elastic can get stretched out. Nowadays, we are all too often subjected to bizarre scenes that are just too far out, and what the show snaps back to just isn’t close enough to reality. To me, at this point, any large deviation from the norm is painful to see. The truth is, some of this happened in the show’s glory days, but back then, it was so few and far between that that actually made it funnier. To clarify my point, I don’t want the Simpsons to stop being weird. Many of Springfield’s inhabitants are very strange people, and they shouldn’t stop. I like the family’s outlandish adventures. But Rod and Todd levitating part of a car should not be a plot point. (Although even I laughed at the way Flanders was placated.) The problem is that now it’s leaking out of short, self-contained bits and into Avoid superfluous technology: I understand that the Simpsons has always taken place at the present time of whenever it aired (even though that requires more and more willing oneself not to think about it.) This one is a nitpick, but there are a couple reasons: (1) The Simpsons is getting way too complacent with letting technology do fantastical things. (2) The Simpsons was fundamentally never set up for the ramifications of instant communication anywhere. By avoiding the problem, the mostly just play into the point. This would just solidify it, for more internal consistency. There’s another problem that bothers me: the Simpsons are now surrounded by technology. Apparently, despite being constantly short of money, it seems that the family has multiple laptops, tablets, and up-to-date smart-style cellphones for everyone. Cut back on guest stars: Biggest problems: *Poor use of time. *Less snap-back and more complete new timeline. *Weak characterization of persons, places, and things. *Political charge *Episodes which fail to tell or complete a cohesive and interesting story *Unfortunate character developments Tips to fix it: *Prioritize telling a story. If an episode doesn’t feel over when it ends, then something has to give so that it does. If that means surrendering some gags, I’m afraid it may be necessary (although, sadly, many episodes have a few gags that aren’t funny anyway, so it wouldn’t always be a big loss anyway. Another rule of thumb: if a story focuses on a certain character (by which I mean the episode’s closure focuses on that character), then that character should not only emerge as central in the second half of the episode. I don’t mind that the Simpsons often finds roundabout ways to introduce its main plots – sometimes they’re fun – but the central characters should get in early, and it’s even better if introductory events can keep having some presence for the rest of the episode. Just forgetting about them, especially when it’s something that shouldn’t just go away, makes the whole thing pointless. *People have said that the Simpsons runs heavily on the reset button – namely, that things go back to normal each week. Actually, this isn’t entirely true anymore. Nowadays, more and more, the Simpsons feels less like it’s been reset and more like it a completely new version of the Simpsons every week. New characters, who may well have new pasts. This problem, I feel, is made worse by characters and objects that are very recognizable as being “of the week”. It’s very clear they only exist in self-contained storylines. And it’s that idea of being self-contained that is the problem. We should feel like we’re catching up with the family, not that we’re meeting another carbon copy of the family. It cheapens them. *Part of the problem with Springfield is that it has so little character. This is partly a result of the fact that it is in no clear part of the country; thus it has no local culture. It is coastal whenever it needs to me, but isn’t really a seaside town kind of town. It moves unpredictably from verging on town so small you always run into the same people to large city. Its current theme is “everything is crappy” which goes some ways, but doesn’t do everything. Remember when Springfield had unique traditions like whacking day? It’s worse for some of the characters. I like the flexibility that the show has had in terms of character development, but some of the choices have gotten pretty bad. Also, some of the characters have gone and become totally engrossed in a single joke that’s already gotten old. Removing superfluous technology would also help strengthen this. *What the Simpsons has in its favor: 30 years of background to draw on. Why won’t they ever draw on it? *I wish they’d keep politics out of it. The Simpsons really isn’t even a good platform for that kind of thing anyway, so they’re not doing any favors anyhow. Besides, the general broad cynicism always worked for them. Worse, it’s one of the reasons I’ve come to hate Lisa, and I really don’t want to hate Lisa. I admit that I have preferred characterizations of the characters. Flanders, for instance, I think, is going nowhere as a parody of conservative religious types (partly because it’s inconsistent). I’d personally see to it that his status as a genuine nice guy, if somewhat bland, is the defining characteristic. Actually, with regard to the political point, I think he’d do better as a means of demonstration by contrast: someone who is religious and traditional, and shows it by prioritizing service to the poor. *The effect is cheapened by the sense that it’s all recreated every week. *Episodes are plotted with poor timing and lack of closure. *Characters and settings lack definitive characteristics. Ten Tips: *Give Bart a permanent new teacher. I miss Mrs. Krabappel, I miss Marcia Wallace. It’s for the best they retired her character. But if that won’t stop them from giving Bart new teachers for a week (looking at you, Lassen and Barrera), then they should just settle on a new teacher, voiced by vocal artist who can keep coming back each week. On this matter, I have a few thoughts. Don’t introduce the character all at once. Give him or her the time to develop. Don’t present him or her as a replacement. (I wonder if this effect could be accomplished by letting Bart move to fifth grade, rather than keeping him in fourth with a new teacher.) This also gets back to my point: create characters who are worth bringing back. Consider introducing the character gradually. To stand alongside characters who have been here for decades, he/she needs to be fleshed out, but can’t stick out as a newbie either. Rule of thumb, if he/she doesn’t have chemistry with Bart and Skinner, the character needs to be rethought. *Give the characters actual biographies: what they did in the past. Keep them consistent. While the Simpsons has always had a tendency to build itself up week by week with no goal in sight, there does seem to be some evidence that characters intended to be the recurring cast circa season 1 and maybe 2 did have their backgrounds put to paper even when it was not explicitly stated in their debut. Back in “I Married Marge”, according to the creator commentary, there was some disagreement about putting Homer and Marge’s engagement and marriage, Bart’s birth, and Homer’s initial employment at the nuclear plant in the same episode, when in fact that could have supplied three episodes. So maybe things weren’t completely hammered out at the time about how that happened, but even so, it’s pretty well accepted that those events are how it happened. If characters keep being given past events that don’t feel like they really happened, you get characters who are not just reset, but recreated every week. Important events in character’s pasts should be kept stable. I understand the risks of too much continuity, given that there are shows that have entirely retreated into their own asses through dense webs of self-referential humor, but that’s an extreme and easily avoidable. I’m not asking that the events of one episode continue those of last weeks, but merely that they not contradict. *Let Lisa be a child and Bart not be stupid. Realistically, even the smartest eight-year-old would have large gaps in her knowledge. She just wouldn’t have the time to have gotten to all of it yet. Every time a piece of famous literature comes up, it’s likely that Lisa not only has read it but can quote it. But that’s not really the biggest problem. It’s that the show won’t let her have less than adult knowledge. Consider the episode _______ which suggests Bart has very limited knowledge of sexual mechanics, but Lisa doesn’t. While Bart is ten, so it’s justified for his knowledge to be limited, it should be pointed out that Bart is older and hangs with an edgier crowd. Lisa is younger and more isolated. *Create storylines worth continuing. After all, they continue storylines sometimes anyway. I just think they should write them with the possibility of continuing them in the future in mind, so that they work better when placed together. For instance: Mother Simpson, My Mother the Carjacker, Mona Leaves-a (and How I Wet Your Mother, sorta).